Share this:

A SB1 sign is posted along the westbound 10 freeway near the Tennessee St. offramp in Redlands on Friday, September 7, 2018. The $8.9 million project will perform preventative maintenance to shoulders, drainage, guardrail, etc. along a 25 mile section of Interstate 10 from Ontario to Redlands, three miles of State Routes 210 and 66 near San Bernardino.
(Photo by Stan Lim, The Press-Enterprise/SCNG)

The political debate over Proposition 6 — the November ballot initiative that would repeal gas tax and vehicle fees imposed by state lawmakers last year — offers a new window into an old California fight.

On one side are those who want the money and jobs — and improved roads — that figure to come with SB 1, the tax in question. On the other side are people who argue that Californians already pay too much in taxes, and that lawmakers could fix roads and highways with existing money if they just used some fiscal discipline.

It’s the same sort of argument that played out 40 years ago with the passage of Prop. 13 and, to a lesser degree, in tax debates that have come up in the decades since.

The difference this time is the stakes, particularly for traffic-obsessed Southern California.

The gas and diesel taxes and vehicle fees of SB 1 are projected to generate more than $5 billion next year statewide, and $52.4 billion over the next decade. If Prop 6 passes, that money figures to stay in drivers’ wallets.

But that SB1 money, and the thousands of road projects it is supposed to finance, also could generate a tidal wave of transportation jobs. One estimate from the unabashedly pro SB1 group, the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, pegs the number of SB1-related jobs at 682,000 over the next decade. Those jobs, in theory, might not happen if Prop 6 passes.

There’s even a wild-card element to Prop 6; it’s vote bait.

Backers of getting Prop 6 on the November ballot included political action committees that typically raise money for national Republicans and national GOP-favored causes. In addition to being ideologically opposed to new taxes, the groups wanted Prop 6 on the California ballot because it figures to entice at least some GOP voters to the polls, something that could help protect a half-dozen GOP-held congressional seats targeted by national Democrats.

“From a turnout and motivation perspective, (Prop 6) is a huge winner for Republicans,” Jack Pandol, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, told CalMatters last month. “We’re going to make every Democrat in November own this tax.”

But supporters of SB1, who want Prop 6 to be defeated, suggest the bigger goals of the tax — helping to un-clog freeways and create better, safer transportation in an aging statewide road system that carries 40 percent of the nation’s consumer goods — transcend politics.

“I think there are sometimes efforts to politicize these important and much needed public safety improvements in our communities,” said Carolyn Coleman, executive director of the League of California Cities, which is opposing Prop 6.

“In my work every day, I talk to a lot of city council members and they will assure me there’s not a Republican pot hole or a Democrat pot hole… There are too many pot holes and too many roads in need of repairs.”

Freeway? No such thing

In April 2017, Senate Bill 1, also known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, was approved by more than two thirds of the state legislature. That made SB1 the rare California tax passed without direct voter approval and Gov. Jerry Brown soon signed it into law.

The additional taxes of 12 cents per gallon for gasoline and 20 cents per gallon of diesel fuel showed up quickly at gas pumps, on Nov. 1, 2017. The state also increased vehicle registration fees by $25-$175 depending on the age of the automobile, starting Jan. 1, 2018. An additional fee — $100 per year to owners of electric cars — is set to begin in 2020.

The other thing that happened quickly after passage of SB1 was the push to spend the money.

“There are more than 6,500 transportation projects that are already under way in communities across this state that are being funded with these transportation revenues,” Coleman said.

“If Prop 6 passes, it would jeopardize all of those existing projects that are going to make our roads safer and our bridges and overpasses safer.”

It’s unclear how many of those 6,500 projects are under construction and how many are in planning stages.

The argument that a tax should be imposed because projects are already connected to it is frustrating to people pushing for the repeal. In some cases, they’ve also argued that the “Your tax dollars at work” signs connected to SB1-related projects represent an illegal form of political advertising, and that the huge number of projects said to be funded by SB1 couldn’t possibly be connected to a tax that is only starting to generate revenue.

Critically, Prop 6 supporters also say California taxpayers have already paid for current road projects through previously collected gas taxes. The new hike, they argue, is an unnecessary financial burden on families living in a state where the cost of living is already too high.

“We’ve been paying, for 25 years, a gas tax that was already the second highest in the country. And all that money could have funded those projects years ago and all that money can still fund those projects,” said Carl DeMaio, a former San Diego City Councilman who is leading the effort to pass Prop 6 and repeal SB1.

The campaign has another idea that they say, will nearly double the revenue from SB1 — without a tax. A future ballot, they say, will include a measure that would require all existing gas taxes — in addition to car sales taxes and truck weight fees — go only to transportation projects throughout the state.

“We feel this is a solid approach to infrastructure financing,” DeMaio said. “We will mandate that it always go to infrastructure and roads, versus what the politicians have given with a phony commitment on a phony lock box.”

In June, Californians voted in support of Proposition 69, creating a constitutional mandate that the state legislature use SB1 funds on transportation-related projects.

Proponents of SB1 who are leading the charge against Prop 6 suggest arguments about squandered gas taxes aren’t accurate. While some SB1 money currently is going to everything from agriculture to parks, they point out that’s a result of current state law and was disclosed as part of the SB1 debate. Those programs — including higher education, parks and social services — could be threatened if all gas money is aimed at roads.

They also suggest those who would kill the new gas tax aren’t taking into account the actual expenses of transportation maintenance and freeway expansion.

Literature from the No on 6 campaign says that even with gas tax revenues going toward transportation projects, California was still short $130 billion over the next 10 years to bring state highways and local streets and roads into good and safe condition, and to expand freeways enough so that traffic between urban centers, such as Orange and Los Angeles counties, doesn’t become even worse than it is now.

They point out that part of the reason state roads and highways have fallen into disrepair, and traffic congestion has grown worse, is because prior to SB1 state gas taxes hadn’t gone up in a long time.

“We have not raised the revenue sources for that in over 23 years and so it would just stand to reason that over those 23 years there would be deterioration of the system,” said Coleman of the League of California Cities.

The boost in funding from SB1 already has been “vastly beneficial” for the California Department of Transportation, which previously was taking a band-aid approach to fixing problems, said Joy Schneider, spokeswoman for CalTrans District 8.

That boost soon could translate into paychecks. In March, CalTrans said it plans to hire 2,000 people — a bump of about 10 percent from its current payroll — over the next five years to work on projects funded by SB1.

As part of the deal, state transportation infrastructure will receive about half of the new funding, or $26 billion. Statewide, CalTrans has completed 40 projects, awarded or started construction on 98 projects and begun planning on 198 others, according to the state’s website dedicated to tracking the funding.

“The SB 1 revenue has allowed us to make repairs that will be long term in nature,” Schneider said, adding that projects already under construction are guaranteed, but those still on the books would need to be re-prioritized if Prop. 6 is passed.

“There would be some risk,” Schneider said. “Priorities would definitely be shifted because without SB1 the revenue is just not there.”

The California Transportation Commission has already dedicated more than $9 billion in SB1 funding to projects across the state, according to Amy MacPherson, public information officer with the Commission, via email.

And as long as SB1 is in effect, MacPherson said they will continue to implement it by pushing forward on projects, hiring necessary workers and informing the public about upcoming projects.

But if Prop 6 passes, the state would stop collecting new revenue and would allocate only what it has in hand for projects under construction at the time of the election. MacPherson said not all the projects currently set to receive SB1 funding would be completed, and projects on the drawing board likely would remain there.

The new gas tax, “essentially doubled” available funding for the other, existing programs, MacPherson said. “With half as much funding, you can only do half as much work.”